Imágenes de páginas

are gradually disposing of our backlog. I would say that at the present time we might not have more than a hundred cases in backlog.

Senator CLARK. About how long does it take from the time a complaint is filed on the average to a disposition of the matter by conciliation or by the issuance of a cease-and-desist order?

Miss WITHEY. With reference to an employment case it would pos-
sibly take somewhere between 60 days and 4 months.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Miss Withey.
Mr. Webber.



Mr. WEBBER. The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination has jurisdiction over employment, housing, public accommodations and some phases of school operations. It has broad coverage in that it covers the areas of age

and sex as well as those of race, religion, and color. It has been in existence for 21 years. During this time I think we have built a body of experience of some value. I agree with the basic tenets of the previous speakers and I don't want to be repetitive so I will disregard this.

Senator Clark. Yes, and I have read your statement and unfortunately there are no other Senators here.

Mr. WEBBER. But I did want to say that we don't have any civil powers, we don't have the power to go to civil court. We have never felt this to be a serious lack because the expertise that is built up within the Commission and the power, the threat of being able to issue a ceaseand-desist order we have found has aided our conciliation to the point where those cases were where we find probable cause we have been able to conciliate in the great majority of cases.

Senator Clark. Let me ask you what happens. You say you have no civil enforcement powers. What happens if you issue a cease-and-desist order and the defendant does not obey it?

Mr. WEBBER. This is enforceable through the courts, sir, and they would be in contempt which is a $500 fine or a year in jail.

Senator CLARK. So to that extent you have a civil remedy?
Mr. WEBBER. Yes, we have an enforceable order.

Senator CLARK. Would it be civil contempt or criminal contempt? There is a very slim distinction, of course.

Mr. TYTLER, I don't know about Massachusetts, Senator, but in Washington it is civil contempt.

Mr. PFAUS. I am sure it is civilin Massachusetts.
Senator CLARK. Thank you.
Professor Murphy,



Professor MURPHY. Senator, I would like for the record to show that I am here wearing two hats today.

Senator Clark. I gathered that from your statement. I congratulate you and the law school for turning you loose to do this fine civic work.

Professor Murphy. Thank you, Senator. The first three pages of my statement I am speaking for the Missouri Commission on Human

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Rights, but for everything that is said in the last three pages they can't be held responsible.

Senator CLARK. Those are some of your most valuable suggestions.

Professor MURPHY. Senator, I would like to reiterate, of course, our full support of everything that has been said for cease-and-desist powers.

Indeed, it seems to me that this is an exercise in documenting the obvious. Rather than recapitulate my prepared statement I would like to take my time, if may, to comment on a statement that was made by one of yesterday's witnesses.

Senator CLARK. Yes; I wish you would.

I don't know whether any of you heard the representative of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce this morning but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has as its president former Gov. Allan Shivers, of Texas, and they sent a very articulate and able young man in this morning, Mr. James W. Hunt, who testified in opposition to 1308 on behalf of the chamber of commerce.

His general view was that to provide cease-and-desist powers would make matters worse then rather than better because it would antagonize people who might be encouraged to cooperate voluntarily. He suggested that if you have a stick in the closet this would get their backs up and you would get into a lawsuit and that is always unfortunate.

I was going to ask each of you in turn a little later to comment on that. Possibly-suppose we start with Mr. Murphy.

Professor MURPHY. I will comment on it right now. I think the history of the right of workers to engage in union activity in the 1930's is directly parallel.

Senator CLARK. He said he did not think it was. He said collective bargaining was very different from asserting individual rights on behalf of individual people.

Professor MURPHY. Was he able to bring to the attention of the committee any instances in which powers of conciliation without enforcement had really affected the legislative purpose ?

I think history would demonstrate to the contrary, Senator.

Senator CLARK. I think so. His view was that since there was not any such power in Federal law now there would be no basis for comparșion. Of course, we probably should have asked him, and Senator Javits has requested that he reply in writing to some inquiries, what the experience of the chamber has been in the various States which do have these enforcement powers.

I think I will ask each of you in tum-perhaps you can start, Mr. Murphy-whether there is anything in your experience which would indicate that your State chambers of commerce are opposed to enforcement powers or whether the business interests, organized or unorganized, have been making efforts to repeal those enforcement powers or have indicated any dissatisfaction with them?

Professor MURPHY. I know of no effort in our State to bring about any repeal of our statute. Our statute at the present time covers not only discrimination in employment but public accommodations. That was added by our legislature in 1965.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

At the present time we have bills in the legislature which would extend the antidiscrimination policy into the field of housing. I would be amazed if Missouri were to reverse itself, so to speak, in this area.

Senator CLARK. Now you have a pretty active State chamber of commerce, I imagine. Have they indicated in this any antagonism to your Staté law?

Professor MURPHY. Not to my knowledge, I should say that I have been a member of the Commission for only 1 year prior to coming here on leave. So there are many of the details of the operation with which I am not personally familiar.

But my impression is, from talking with other Commissioners and the staff people, that we do not get this adamant resistance, at least generally speaking, from the business community. There will be isolated instances, yes, sir.

Senator CLARK. Let me hold you in abeyance for a moment and go down the line and ask Mr. Webber, Miss Withey, Mr. Pfaus, and Mr. Cowles whether you know of any public position taken by your State Chambers of Commerce and whether the business community generally has made any efforts to repeal the section of your respective laws which provides the power to issue cease-and-desist orders.

Mr. WEBBER. There has never been any move on the part of the State chamber of commerce to repeal any section of our legislation, including, what is today much more controversial, sections of our housing law.

I am very proud that the State and the Boston Board of Realtors have supported our housing law and that is one of the strong ones in the country Senator CLARK. That is a miracle.

Mr. WEBBER. I think so, too, sir. We do have a State "plans for progress" program in which all the major employers who essentially control the chambers of commerce take an active part. They have been most cooperative.

Senator CLARK. Miss Withey?

Miss WITHEY. I know of no move on the part of any State organization or city organization to repeal the fair housing laws or the law on human rights in any area in New York City or State.

Senator CLARK. Which would include employment?
Miss WITHEY. Yes.
Senator CLARK. Mr. Pfaus.

Mr. Praus. Not only is there no move but we enjoy the graces of the we have two organizations, the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce and the New Jersey Manufacturers Association. I would like to give you this pamphlet as an example of the kind

of cooperation called the “Employer's Guide to the New Jersey Anti-Discrimination Law."

We wrote it and the New Jersey Manufacturers Association paid for its printing and its distribution and the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce also at its own expense distributed copies of this to every member of the organization throughout the State.

Senator CLARK. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cowles.

Mr. Cowles. Senator Clark, there is no opposition, either private or overt, to the cease-and-desist power in our law.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Beyond that, Senator, the State board against discrimination in the State of Washington as part of its affirmative action program meets regularly with the business community and particular with the Boeing Co. personnel, which is our largest employer and we find that the relationships between the business community and our agency are very excellent.

When cases of discrimination are discovered they are more than willing to sit down and conciliate.

Senator CLARK. Perhaps from what the lady and gentlemen have said, the position of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America is largely a Texas phenomena.

Professor MURPHY. The Junior Chamber of Commerce in Missouri just a few years ago designated the executive director of our commission as Jaycee's Man of the Year. Whatever the seniors might think the juniors are certainly behind us.

Senator CLARK. That is very interesting.

Professor MURPHY. I want to comment on a statement made by Mr. Mitchell yesterday afternoon in which he referred to the policy of State operation in this area and the deferring of cases by the EĚOC to State agencies as being a question of States rights.

I would certainly not want to have this program go before Congress with the stigma of States rights attached to it because to me it is not a question of States rights at all. The right to be free from racial discrimination is a Federal right and the Federal Government has the power and the primary and ultimate duty to protect it. At the same time it is true that the States are capable, if they will assume the responsibility, of performing a useful role in this area.

There is a problem, not only in this area but many other areas, of revitalizing State government, of trying to get the States to fulfill their responsibilities and assume a more important role in our system, Reapportionment of State legislatures will ħave its ultimate historical vindication in the fact that it did contribute to a reinvigoration of State and local government.

Senator CLARK. I quite agree with you. Does seem to me that to the extent that these responsibilities can be decentralized to the States and to the extent that we find the States are picking up that responsibility and carrying it adequately, just to that extent the Federal Government might well stay out of the way and let the States handle it.

It is only when the States are failing to do a good job I think that the Federal Government should intervene. Then in that respect I would like to ask each of you what the relationships of your State and city commissions have been with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission since it went into the business after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Perhaps you could start with that, Mr. Murphy.

Professor MURPHY. Our relations have been excellent. At the present time we are getting about 60 percent of our cases in the employment area on a deferral basis from the EEOC.

We have been the recipient of two or three grants for research projects from EEOC. So, both functionally and I think as a matter of per: sonal relationships we have gotten along extremely well with them and I think they would reciprocate that feeling.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Senator CLARK. Yesterday, Mr. Shulman, the chairman of the commission, testified that there was a good deal of what I then called battledoor and shuttlecock in that under the Federal law the complaint would be referred to the State commission for processing but if it did not act by a certain time then the Federal Government would resume jurisdiction and process the complaint. In Missouri have there been complaints referred by the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which you have been nnable to process in the time so they went back to the Federal Government?

Professor MURPHY. I will answer your question this way, Senator. There have been cases which we have not been able to process within the 60 days provided by the statute.

But they have not gone back to the Federal Government for the reason that their backlog would have prevented the case from being processed, too.

So on what might be called a nonstatutory arrangement we have kept those cases beyond the 60-day limit contemplated by the statute. But I have been advised by a member of our staff who is present here that there has not been å single case which has come to Missouri from the EEOC which has gone back to the EEOC. Senator CLARK. What is your experience, Mr. Webber? Mr. WEBBER. When the EÉOC was formed our commission attitude was that it was vital and necessary addition to the fight against discrimination in this country. Our relationship has been cooperative. We have again also received grants for research purposes that have been very valuable.

Last year I believe it was 17 complaints referred to the Massachusetts commission from the EEOC. This year there has been one. To my knowledge there have been two here that have gone back.

This does not mean that every one of those cases was settled in 60 days. At the end of 60 days we have made a report. While the majority of our employment cases would be settled in the 30 to 60 days referred to before, if you try to average it there are always a few that go for a very long time so the average really is--does not apply.

I only know of two cases that have gone back to the EEOC for any action in the years that they have been organized.

Senator CLARK. Miss Withey, I suppose that the Federal Commission would refer the complaint to the State commission rather than to the city commission?

Miss WITHEY. That is right. We have received no referrals because the agreement is with the State. However we have been working very closely with the EEOC with reference to contract compliance and with reference to other areas. I know that the city commission also was the recipient of a grant for research which they did with Wayne State University on the question of retail stores in New York City.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Pfaus? Mr. PFAUS. As I indicated in our statement our relationship with EEOC has been very cooperative. I don't have the exact figure but I would guess we have received about 100 cases referred to us and every single one of these has been processed within the statutory requirement.

« AnteriorContinuar »